[Sebb767]

I'd compare it more to the law of entrapment: You need to show that you did the action because it was an officer convincing you; the fact that you were convinced/talked into doing something is not enough. Which seems parallel to our case: The spouse in question was open to cheating; the fact that it was a detective (or fraudster) on the other side seems irrelevant.

But I see your point, it feels fraudulent since you prove one side is bad by doing something (possibly) equally as bad, but only one thing is regarded in court. Though it will probably look bad if it's found out.

> I am not your lawyer. This is not legal advice.

Me neither, but I think it's an interesting topic.

> If your partner is actively sabotaging your relationship, it may not be a good idea to stay with that person.

Of course. But that was the point all along, I guess ;)